Patent claims applications

From a procedural standpoint, unfavorable patent decisions by USPTO examiners (e.g., rejected patent claims/applications) can be appealed to the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board). If the outcome at the Board is unfavorable to the applicant then the applicant may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Unfavorable decisions from the CAFC may be further appealed by petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.6 While patent appeals from the Board to the CACF may be made as a matter of right, appeals from the CAFC to the Supreme Court are not. Due to the Supreme Court s broad jurisdiction and very limited capacity to hear cases, only a very small percent of cases that are appealed (approximately 1%) are heard (so good luck ).7 Patent litigation on the other hand involves the enforcement of patents that have already... 

In the past 25 years, there have been numerous publications and patents claiming applications of 1-haloalkyl carbonates to mask acid or hydroxy functions of certain types of active compounds such as parmaceuticals or pesticides according to the scheme 62. 

Patent, n. patent (in the proper sense cf. Ge-brauchsmuster). -amt, n. patent office, -an-meldimg, f. application for a patent, -an-spruchi m. patent claim, -anwalt, m. patent attorney, -beschreibung,/. patent description or specification, -blatt, n. patent gazette. -dauer, /. life of a patent, -ein-spruch, m. patent interference, patentfahig, a. patentable. 

Several patents claiming aryl sulfonamides have recently appeared [117-121], In the first, compound 43 was described to be effective in the rat collagen-induced arthritis model when dosed at 100 mpk (s.c., q.d., from day 9-17) [117]. This patent also reported that compound 44 significantly inhibited the number of monocytes recruited following thioglycolate injection in a rat peritonitis model. Two other patent applications describe sulfonamides 45 [120] and 46 [121] as CCR2 antagonists. 

The principal method of protecting novel products and processes is by patents. A patent confers an absolute monopoly on the holder, in the territory for which it is granted, but in order for the patent to be valid, everything covered by the patent claim must be a new invention. In Europe, patents generally last for 20 years from the date of application, whereas in the United States the period is 17 years from the date of grant. 

Background to patent application Outline of problems the innovation will solve Detailed technical description of innovation The specific patent claims... 

After its submission to a patent office, the patent application is briefly reviewed and, if all the required information is provided, a formal filing date is issued. A detailed examination of the patent will then be undertaken by patent office experts, whose assessment will be based upon the four main criteria previously outlined. A report is subsequently issued accepting or rejecting the patent claim. The applicant is given the opportunity to reply, or modify the patent and resubmit it for further evaluation. In some cases, two or three such cycles may be undertaken before the patent is granted (or perhaps finally rejected). 

It is not possible, once the patent application is filed, to add further informahon. The applicant must therefore rely on the original disclosure which should be as complete and accurate as possible. Problems may arise if this is not the case. If the application does not describe the invention in sufficient detail, ideally across the full breadth of the monopoly claimed, the patent claims may be completely bad or their breadth may have to be reduced significantly. Thus, as much information as possible on how to carry out the invention should be given in the patent application. For example, if the patent application claims the production of a polypeptide in a host cell, and the only working example is its... 

S.N.E.A.(Societe Nationale Elf-Aquitaine). S.N.E.A. was the first of the three groups to publish any details of its research in 1973. The S.N.E.A. patents and applications claim a procedure to manufacture an emulsion of sulfur in asphalt such that the sulfur particle size does not exceed 10 , and averages 0.5-5.0 ym. 

In recent years, a large body of work emphasized the use of zeolites for production of fine chemicals (refs.1-4). The interests stand in replacement of liquid acids to lower corrosion of equipment and pollution, and to reach specific selectivities. However, the hopes raised up in a rapid development of processes seems restrained nowadays. Many patents claimed zeolites as catalysts but very few have received industrial applications. Actually, basic research on the stability, the origin of deactivation, the regenerability of the catalysts have to be developed. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the mechanism of this new kind of reactions are lacking, in particular, the possibility of radical mechanisms, which are rather scarce with hydrocarbons, but can likely occur when heteroatoms are involved in the reactant. Those were our objectives in the study of the isomerisation of substituted halobenzenes on zeolites (refs.5-7). Indeed this reaction was claimed to occur readily on zeolites (refs.8-9), but it is supposed that no industrial development has followed. 

The applicant may additionally ask for an international preliminary examination report (IPER). This report gives a preliminary, nonbinding opinion on the patentability of the claimed invention. On the basis of the international preliminary examination report, the applicant can once again evaluate the chances of his invention being patented. The applicant is entitled to amend the international application during the international preliminary examination. He might for example... 

Patents have been granted for innovations involving the preparation and activities of broad-spectrum antimicrobial emulsions from 1977 (Sippos) to 2000 (Baker). All of these patents claim antibacterial activity, but all involve additives in the non-aqueous phase of the emulsion that are known to be antibacterial alone and before emulsification. Wide spectrum applications for these nanoemulsions have been claimed with positive results for bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The term nanoemulsion is used in US patents discussed below, but the generic term for the product of an emulsification (Gooch 2002, 1980) of a liquid within a liquid is an emulsion. United States patents 6,015,832 and 5,547,677 were examined and formulations in key claim statements were reproduced, and tested using standard methods for effectiveness. Additional patents listed in the reference section were reviewed as part of this study. 

This means that the continuing application can be filed up to the time the issued claims actually publish in the issued patent. In practice, this means that the continuing application (if one is desired) will usually be filed at the same time the issue fee on the claims from the pending application is paid. It usually takes about 1 month from payment of an issue fee until the time an issued patent is published (and thus patented). 42Patent applications that issued before June 8, 1995, have patent terms that run 17 years from the date the patent issues. Patent applications filed before June 8, 1995, and issued after that date have terms of 17 years from the date of issue or 20 years from the date of filing the applicant chooses. Applications filed after June 8, 1995, are subject to the 20-year from filing term. 

One possibility for seeking a reissue patent includes the situation in which the patentees discover prior art that they were not aware of during the prosecution of the patent application, but that could affect the validity of one or more of their patent claims such that they might tike to narrow the claim(s) to avoid the prior art and thus provide them with the maximum patentable scope for their invention. 

A count is a constructive claim used during the interference to define the contested subject matter between the two parties. A phantom count refers to a constructive claim that does not necessarily correspond to a single claim from either subject application but is assembled to capture the subject matter from two substantially similar claims from the two applications. For purposes of the present discussion, we can think of the count as an ordinary patent claim. 

During the course of the patent prosecution, the applicants were successful in getting the two claims shown in Figure 9.2 issued in U.S. 6,992,424 on July 15,2004. Before to the issuance of the U.S. 6,992,424 patent, the applicants tile a continuation application (application number 10/999,621). In the continuation application, two more claims to the remaining subject matter (Figure 9.3) were issued in U.S. 7,532,923 on September 29, 2008. 

The focus on the claimed invention is sensible from both policy and practical enforcement standpoints. It is not fair to grant a right to exclude that is greater than the scope of disclosure, but it s also not fair to require disclosure beyond the granted right of exclusion. If the patent claims only a composition then it is usually not necessary to describe the best way to make the compound the process to make the compound might even be the subject of a separate patent application or kept as the applicant s trade secret. In such a circumstance, the patent would need only to disclose those details that materially affected the invention as claimed. This issue will be specifically covered in our next case. 

---